Premium
This is an archive article published on May 1, 2023

Gujarat HC rejects contempt petition against police over Dr Atul Chag’s suicide

A purported suicide note accused BJP Junagadh MP Rajesh Chudasama and his father of threatening Dr Chag over Rs 1.75 crore he had lent them, but no FIR has been registered in connection with the death.

Gujarat HCDr Chag, who used to run a hospital in Veraval, was found hanging at his home on February 12. (FILE)
Listen to this article
Gujarat HC rejects contempt petition against police over Dr Atul Chag’s suicide
x
00:00
1x 1.5x 1.8x

The Gujarat High Court on Monday refrained from exercising contempt jurisdiction while hearing a petition moved by Hitarth Chag, son of Dr Atul Chag, who died by suicide in February. He alleged that police had acted in contempt of the Supreme Court’s Lalita Kumari judgment by refusing to register an FIR in the case.

A bench of Justices A J Shastri and J C Doshi held that had the petition been filed under the writ jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution, the court could have probably viewed the matter from a different angle, but since the petitioner had invoked contempt jurisdiction, it was not the right forum to decide on the matter.

Dr Chag, who used to run a hospital in Veraval, was found hanging at his home on February 12. A purported suicide note recovered from his home accused BJP Junagadh MP Rajesh Chudasama and his father Naran Chudasama of compelling him to take the extreme step.

Story continues below this ad

On February 17, Hitarth filed a complaint with the Veraval police stating that his father died by suicide as Rajesh and Naran had not returned about Rs 1.75 crore that Dr Chag had lent them in 2008, and had instead threatened him with “dire consequences” if he demanded the money back. A case of accidental death was registered but no FIR has been registered till date.

The investigating officer, Sunil Ishrani, contested the maintainability of Hitarth’s petition on the ground that contempt jurisdiction can only be invoked before the Supreme Court, where the Lalita Kumari judgment was pronounced. And Hitarth’s advocate, Yogesh Lakhani, had conceded earlier that the petition might not be maintainable before the high court. The Lalita Kumari judgment lays guidelines for registering FIRs of cognisable offences and prescribes a time-bound inquiry for non-cognisable offences.

The bench, while disposing of the petition, said it had not gone into the merits of the case or Hitarth’s allegations but allowed him to “take out appropriate proceedings as may be permissible in law.” “It may be that the applicant is aggrieved by the action of the respondent (police officials) but remedy is not the present petition, it must be before the appropriate forum,” the bench concluded.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement